Oct 18, 2020, 10:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 16. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: >> >> generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for >> those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public >> footpaths in England & Wales). >> > > > most bicycle=no tags out there actually mean that you cannot ride a bike, not > that you cannot have a bike in your pocket or be pushing a bike or carrying a > bike in a box or on your shoulders. > > I would suggest a different tag than bicycle=no for places where you cannot > bring a bicycle, because otherwise you will never know which interpretation > of bicycle=no was used by the mapper. > +1 At this point bicycle=no means "no cycling allowed" and trying to change meaning would be quite hopeless. You would need a special tag to mark which interpretation is used and resurvey all bicycle=no cases. And at that point it is easier to have a new tag for rare "no bicycle at all in addition to forbidding cycling" At that point it is easier to simply invent a new tag for "no bicycle pushing". (bicycle_pushed=no, bicycle_pushing=no and bicycle_possession=no were proposed) And I think at every point in OSM history, as bicycle=dismount was a duplicate of bicycle=no > The wiki is unsure about the exact meaning, the bicycle=* page says it is > about restrictions for bicycles while the access page (older) says it is > about restrictions for cyclists. IMHO the most common interpretation is > legality of cycling/riding a bicycle. > ""
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging